I'm a historian and not a believer in conspiracies. But there is a very clear message from those numbers:In a crisis the elites are becoming more powerful.

The current crisis is no different. I don't think the crisis is caused by an evil masterplan, but it sure shows that the ruling class doesn't really feel the pressure beyond being afraid of a revolt. The ones who need it to be fixed the most don't have the means to fix it.

I don't think the crisis is caused by an evil masterplan, but it sure shows that the ruling class doesn't really feel the pressure beyond being afraid of a revolt.

They don't even feel that. There is near-zero pressure in that regard, because there is always some market for some thing in some place and they can take advantage of any such thing at any time.

The actual feelings of the ruling class have been interviewed, cataloged, and written about at-length in The Atlantic (can't find the article, but it's about the super-rich and their outlook on the rest of the world, their lack of ties to any one nation, how they basically exist in another universe, etc).

I don't think the crisis is caused by an evil masterplan, but it sure shows that the ruling class doesn't really feel the pressure beyond being afraid of a revolt.

They don't even feel that. There is near-zero pressure in that regard, because there is always some market for some thing in some place and they can take advantage of any such thing at any time.

The actual feelings of the ruling class have been interviewed, cataloged, and written about at-length in The Atlantic (can't find the article, but it's about the super-rich and their outlook on the rest of the world, their lack of ties to any one nation, how they basically exist in another universe, etc).

I don't think the crisis is caused by an evil masterplan, but it sure shows that the ruling class doesn't really feel the pressure beyond being afraid of a revolt.

They don't even feel that. There is near-zero pressure in that regard, because there is always some market for some thing in some place and they can take advantage of any such thing at any time.

The actual feelings of the ruling class have been interviewed, cataloged, and written about at-length in The Atlantic (can't find the article, but it's about the super-rich and their outlook on the rest of the world, their lack of ties to any one nation, how they basically exist in another universe, etc).

The heading is "SuperPAC donors"--those are donors to Priorities USA and Restore Our Future, two SuperPACs closely tied to Obama and Romney respectively. There's no mention or accounting of e.g. the SuperPAC run by the Koch brothers. This isn't the fault of the NYT--there's no disclosure on donations to such organizations, so there's not much they can do.

edit: it looks like "Outside Spending" includes many SuperPACs including Americans for Prosperity. I'm curious where they get the numbers, as they can't be accounting for everything.

The heading is "SuperPAC donors"--those are donors to Priorities USA and Restore Our Future, two SuperPACs closely tied to Obama and Romney respectively. There's no mention or accounting of e.g. the SuperPAC run by the Koch brothers. This isn't the fault of the NYT--there's no disclosure on donations to such organizations, so there's not much they can do.

edit: it looks like "Outside Spending" includes many SuperPACs including Americans for Prosperity. I'm curious where they get the numbers, as they can't be accounting for everything.

The political system is practically rigged for the 1% to rule the system. They could put limits on fund raising, limits on advertising ect... That would level the playing field and perhaps even allow a third party candidate to contend.

The heading is "SuperPAC donors"--those are donors to Priorities USA and Restore Our Future, two SuperPACs closely tied to Obama and Romney respectively. There's no mention or accounting of e.g. the SuperPAC run by the Koch brothers. This isn't the fault of the NYT--there's no disclosure on donations to such organizations, so there's not much they can do.

edit: it looks like "Outside Spending" includes many SuperPACs including Americans for Prosperity. I'm curious where they get the numbers, as they can't be accounting for everything.

Thought they had to disclose spending, though on a different schedule than campaigns. It's donors they don't disclose.

The heading is "SuperPAC donors"--those are donors to Priorities USA and Restore Our Future, two SuperPACs closely tied to Obama and Romney respectively. There's no mention or accounting of e.g. the SuperPAC run by the Koch brothers. This isn't the fault of the NYT--there's no disclosure on donations to such organizations, so there's not much they can do.

edit: it looks like "Outside Spending" includes many SuperPACs including Americans for Prosperity. I'm curious where they get the numbers, as they can't be accounting for everything.

Thought they had to disclose spending, though on a different schedule than campaigns. It's donors they don't disclose.

This is the case. They have to disclose both spending and donation amounts - just not who gave them the money.